Allahabad High Court
Smt. Anita Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 13 November, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:72235 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW Reserved WRIT - A No. - 2321 of 2024 Smt. Anita Pandey .....Petitioner(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Technical Education Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) :
Lalit Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) :
C.S.C. Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.
2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 31.01.2024 whereby benefits of promotional pay scale granted earlier to petitioner have been withdrawn on the pretext that they were incorrectly granted. Further prayer has been sought for a direction to opposite parties to pay entire service benefits and pay scale on the basis of last pay drawn in grade pay of Rs.7,600/- and for payment of salary, accordingly.
3. The said aspect has already been considered and decided in Writ-A No. 2512 of 2024, in the following manner:-
"11. In the present case, it is evident that earlier the post of Workshop Superintendent and criteria for promotion was indicated in the service Rules of 1990 in category (xiv) where 25% of the posts were required to be filled by promotion through Commission on the basis of merit from amongst substantively appointed Instructors, Assistant Lecturers etc. The aforesaid rules were thereafter amended in the year 1998 vide notification dated 17.12.1998 whereby the amendment incorporated was ITI qualified Workshop Instructors to be promoted on the post of Workshop Superintendents which carried the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/-. The amendment also indicated that for purposes for eligibility for such promotion, the work person should have completed 15 years of substantive service as a Workshop Instructor.
12. It is the admitted case of parties that petitioner fulfilled the aforesaid criteria for promotion on the post of Workshop Superintendent but was not so promoted.
13. Counter affidavit clearly admits the fact that promotion to the post of Workshop Superintendent was required to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.
14. However, the counter affidavit adverts to the Government Order dated 20.08.2004 as well as the U.P. Government Servants Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion Rules, 1994 to submit that promotional pay scale is not available for those posts where recruitment is required to be made on the basis of merit.
15. A perusal of the Rules of 1994, specifically Rule 4 thereof clearly carved out an exception for criterion for recruitment by promotion on the post of Head of Department to post just one rank below the Heads of Department and in any service carrying the pay scale, the maximum of which is Rs.18,300/- or above and for such posts, the mode of promotion is merit. The Government Order dated 20.08.2004 is also on the same terms. 16. A perusal of the aforesaid Rules of 1994 alongwith the Government Order dated 20.08.2004 thus indicates the exception to such posts which are required to be filled up by promotion but for which merit is the criteria and it is in such circumstances that promotional pay scale would be unavailable.
18. It is not the case of opposite parties that the post of Workshop Superintendent comes within purview of either the Head of Department or one rank below the Head of Department or carries the pay scale, the maximum of which is Rs.18,300 or above. In the counter affidavit in fact the opposite parties have clearly admitted the fact that recruitment to the post of Workshop Superintendent is to be made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit.
19. In such circumstances, it is apparent that recruitment to the post of Workshop Superintendent is required to be made on the criteria of seniority subject to rejection of unfit and merit in fact is not a criteria for recruitment on the said post. In such circumstances, obviously the first part of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1994 is clearly inapplicable in the case of petitioner. The second portion of Rule 4 thereof clearly indicates that for other posts in all services to be filled by promotion, seniority subject to rejection of unfit shall be the criteria.
20. Evidently, cancellation of pay scale granted to petitioner earlier in the year 2003 on such a ground is erroneous.
21. The second ground taken in the counter affidavit is that the Service Rules as amended in the year 1998 provided for recruitment on the post of Workshop Superintendent from such Workshop Instructors who had completed 15 years of substantive service on the post of Workshop Instructor and therefore, there is no occasion to grant the promotional pay scale prior to that upon completion of 14 years of service.
22. For purposes of aforesaid ground, a perusal of Government Order dated 02.12.2000 clearly indicates that the next higher promotional pay scale would be available upon completion of 14 years of continuous and satisfactory service. It is necessary to mark a distinction that in the present case, petitioner is seeking the next higher promotional pay scale and not promotion on the post of Workshop Superintendent and therefore, it is the Government Order dated 02.12.2000 which shall govern the issue and not the Service Regulations of 1990 as amended in the year 1998 which in fact pertained to the aspect of promotion.
23. Once the Government Order dated 02.12.2000 itself confers benefit of grant of the next higher promotional pay scale upon completion of 14 years of continuous satisfactory service, the same cannot be denied by the opposite parties on the ground that promotion on the post requires 15 years of continuous substantive service on the post of Workshop Instructor. The opposite parties have clearly failed to draw a distinction between the aspect of grant of promotional pay scale and promotion on the post of Workshop Superintendent.
24. In view of discussion made hereinabove, it is evident that opposite parties have clearly fell in error in recalling the benefit of promotional pay scale on the post of Workshop Superintendent granted earlier to petitioner in the year 2003."
4. On the aforesaid judgment pertains to the promotional pay scale on the post of Workshop Superintendent but the said post is similar to the post of Assistant Lecturers as has been sought in the present writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition would be covered judgment rendered in the case of Ram Prakash Mishra (supra).
5. In view thereof, impugned order dated 30.01.2024 so far as it relates to petitioner being unsustainable is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. Consequences to follow with regard to benefits already granted to petitioner vide order dated 27.01.2003, which shall continue to govern the aspect of promotional pay scale granted to petitioner.
6. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. (Manish Mathur,J.) November 13, 2025 Satish